Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39811532›Full record

ArticleData in brief2025

Data on Swiss public's acceptance and sustainability perceptions of food produced with chemical, digital and mechanical weed control measures and the influence of information source on technology perception in agriculture.

Jeanine Ammann, Nadja El Benni, Sandie Masson, Rita Saleh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Data in brief, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jeanine AmmannAgroscope, Economic Modelling and Policy Analysis Group, Tänikon 1, 8356 Ettenhausen, Switzerland.
Nadja El BenniAgroscope, Research Division Sustainability Assessment and Agricultural Management, Tänikon 1, 8356 Ettenhausen, Switzerland.
Sandie MassonAgroscope, Weed Science for Field Crops Group, Route de Duillier 50, 1260 Nyon, Switzerland.
Rita SalehAgroscope, Socio-Economics Group, Tänikon 1, 8356 Ettenhausen, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article describes data from an online survey conducted with the Swiss public from the two biggest language regions (German and French) in Switzerland. The survey was conducted in February 2023. Participants were recruited through a professional panel provider and quotas were used for age, gender and language region. The final sample contained 485 respondents. In the first part of the survey, respondents provided basic sociodemographic information. In the second part, their sustainability perceptions regarding four different weed management practices (full-surface spraying, hoeing machine, spot spraying and precise spraying) were investigated. Respondents were then randomly assigned to one of five experiment groups, in which information on a hoeing and a milking robot was presented, using 5 different information sources (male/female farmer, male/female scientist, no source). Technology perception was assessed using several questions and aspects (e.g. perception of economic, environmental and social sustainability). Finally, respondents answered questions assessing their attitudes towards the perception of farmers, food technology neophobia, chemophobia and the importance of naturalness. The survey can be used and adapted to different contents, aiming to investigate public perception of smart farming technologies and the influence of information sources on technology perception.

Indexed as

ChemophobiaHerbicide usePerception of farmersPublic acceptanceSustainability perceptionsWeed control

Identifiers

PMID39811532
PMCPMC11730271

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.